Comments

Ill have to think about this a bit more a little later. One of the first things I did when I started entering all the missing item histories was to try and standardize the formats. There where several different ones being used. I when to the champion histories as templates and made the item histories looks the same as far as bullet points and bold patch history links ect. I asked myself all the questions you have and set out to make templates to guide my changes based on the old manual of style and what was already on the wiki. I created a personal page to keep track of edits and formate. I link it to you now sir so that you may peruse its contents. I beleive i have answered most of your above points in it.

One think out of the heart of gold example above. I would not put the actual heart of gold icon in since it's the heart of gold page. I think "Recipe changed to:" is good by itself. That's one of those small formatting changes i make between the patch page and the item page. As they are different context I think it's ok. Second i put the change in price on a different line as i think it looks cleaner.

Suggested formatting

Ok, I've looked through your page, impressive work (I especially liked how you have a list of all the inconsistencies by patch). Now, I'll try to piece it together here so we can move forward with the discussion.

Comments

Ok, now the only suggestion I have is - in case of recipe changes (Primary Items 4.1 row) I think the recipe format on Item page should match the Patch note. I think it's cleaner, less words, easier to grasp. Consequently, same will apply to Secondary Items 2.2 row. Also, the wording for Primary item 4.2 on item page should match wording on patch note. Consequently, I already provided the format I think we should use on secondary items 4.3. --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 15:07, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Edited in the Miscellaneous section for reworked formatting. As far as the special word to be used, I think, we can use whatever Riot specifies in the patch notes. Capitalization needs to be decided on. --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 15:15, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for building this table. It's something iv'e always meant to get around to doing but it seemed like finishing all the patch updates was more important. When i first created that page i didn't know a lot of wiki code. Anyway i want to take a good look at this but won't have time today. Ill look at it tonight and make my suggestions. I already see a few small things i would like to change but i will hold off until i look at the whole thing. Is the Patch Notes column set in stone? Ie. that's how it is official done now and we are not changing it. If that's the case i think the item histories should try to match the main patch page as closely as possible to add consistency and make it easier to transfer the notes across.Exiton =:> 17:05, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

The patch note formatting is not untouchable, however, its formatting has been worked on before. Riot formatting, Me and Sam, + wiki polls helped dish out the format you looking at today on the MoS page. If you bring up a good point and we can agree that it would benefit the wiki to change patch notes formatting it such a way, I'm all for it. But I'd like to work on item history formatting first, before we start changing patch notes formatting. Take your time with this, there's no rush. (Rome wasn't built overnight.) --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 17:50, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Ok i have had some time to look over your proposed format and here are my comments. I may also throw some of my reasoning in so people understand why i picked that format.

Primary Item Changes

New Item: This is they way i do it now so of course i'm good with that. I like having all the detail here, even the name of the item which I usually leave out. This is so you have a record of what everything looked like when it was released. There are a lot of items that have been reworked and now we have no record on the wiki of their original stats.

Item Removed: Looks good.

Stats change: Here you changed the way i am currently formatting the item patch histories and i have to disagree with your change. I think leaving the "Stat increased/reduced to X from Y." format it better as it matches the patch notes we put on the wiki. Also it's the way i have edited every item so I would have to go through and edit all the histories on the wiki.

Recipe change: I like this, it's how i already do it. I like explicitly stating the change so you know what Riot did. I'm annoyed every time I come across an old note that just states the new recipe. I want to know what it used to be, isn't that the point of a history. especially since 75% of the items have no or at least an incomplete new item entry.

component changed: I agree, if the entire recipe does not change you can just list what is different.

cost changed: This is a format i never really settled on. I would like others opinion on it as i have seen this listed several ways. "Recipe cost changed", "Upgrade cost changed" and "Combine cost changed". The last one is the one i use more often now, it really depends on the patch notes and Riot keeps changing the wording. In reality you are paying to combine two items but if the patch notes use Recipe then maybe we should adopt that format. You also have to have an exception for consumables and basic items which don't have a recipe. They should just be listed at "Cost Increased/Decreased".

Secondary Item Changes

This is something people were not recording before but i like having the information in the histories.

I tend to say "Used in new item recipe" just because i like the flow of the sentence better but it is kind of redundant. What does the "X+Y" you added represent?

Again a change of wording here. I say "Removed from" you say "No longer part of". Both sound ok but my way doesn't require changing a bunch of entries that are already there.

See above

Im not sure i understand this entry. So what you are saying is. Say the dagger was removed from the game and a recipe that used dagger was changed to use some other item instead. Is that correct? Otherwise it's no different from point 4.1 above.

See point 3 above. I guess we could also mention that it's attack power changed because the Arcane tome (used as a component) attack power changed but i don't think that is necessary or really reliant as it could be two separate changes designed to reduce the power of AP items.

This is essentially the same as points 1 and 2. however 4.3 is interesting and something i had not considered. If the cost of the dagger is lowered and as a result all items it builds into get cheaper should we mention that on all the other item pages. I am tending towards saying no but we do mention all other changes to it's cost. What do other people think?

Miscelanious

I like that format. One think that i have seen others do is put a period after "Reworked". I don't like this as it's not a sentance. It's just a word, a descriptor added to the patch link. This would apply to the "Added" point as well.

your interpretation of my intent for that entry is correct. Based on your response to PI-3, formatting should be: Recipe changed: now requires X instead of Y. (don't list the whole recipe just the changed components) ?

I think formatting should be: Stat increased/decreased to x from y. ?

formatting as 1 above.

formatting as 2 above.

community to be polled on 'Do we want to list this change?'. Formatting: as suggested in table above. ?

That's all I got, please get back to me regarding any entries that have a ? at the end of the line. After that we can move forward to figure out how to do the polls we need. --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 16:12, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Summary

I really need to be more concise in my wording. Sorry about the long post. I see where the confusion is coming from. I have two places on my personal page where i give format and they do not agree. The code box was only intended to show how bullets where used, what to bold and how to format the look, not the content. I don't even use that box any more so there is the problem. You have to look down to the '"Specific Types of Entries and Their Formats" section of that page, that is where i have the formats i use. I have fixed that now.Primary Item Changes:
4.2 - Considering a different wording is used on the normal patch notes we probably do want to pole the community on this. We do however both agree on the same format.Secondary Item Changes:
1. - This was a problem with me not keeping my page up to date as explained above. The format I prefer is the follows. I don't actually add the recipe to this as i see it as unnecessary. They can click on the link if they want to know all the changes to Zeal.

2.2 - I agree here. On the dagger page you would put the standard "Removed from the game" point. And then on each of the affected item pages would do as you have suggested. Normally we would say when dagger was removed from a recipe but i don't think we need to in this case since it's been taken out of the game. I suppose we could put in a second line saying each recipe it was removed from. What do you think? It would then look like this.

Im not sure any of those will work but you get the idea.Additional Points to Conciser

how should we reference gold when we write numbers (100, 100g, 100 gold)?

For secondary changes there are 2 reasons an item can be add to or removed from a recipe. The first is when the recipe of the parent item changes as in 4.1 and 4.2. The second is when the parent item is created or destroyed as in 1.0 and 2.1. Should we make a distinction between these two instances or use the same wording no matter the reason for the change. I have been using different wording for the addition of an item to a recipe but the same wording on removal as you can see from my comments above.

Update Suggested formatting

Ok this discussion is starting to get hard to follow so here is the current state of the changes with any outstanding questions in italics. Details of these questions can be found in the discussion above.

Comments

Do we list all the recipes it was removed from as a result of it's deletion?

- No, we don't.

Should we make a distinction between 2.1 and 4.1?

- No, at least I don't see the benefit. (See 1.0 vs 4.2 below for reasoning)

How should we reference gold when we write numbers (100, 100g, 100 gold)?

- We can make a poll about this too. My opinion is: leaving as just "100" makes sense, since the cost is obviously in gold, there's no other ways of obtaining items.

Secondary Items 1.0 vs 4.2, should formatting be different or not?

- In my opinion, we shouldn't make a difference. Whether the higher order item is new or its recipe was changed, it doesn't concern the basic item that is used in the recipe. In other words, the fact is that the basic item is being added to another recipe, whether the recipe is new or a modified existing one is of no concern from the point of view of the basic item. If someone wanted to find out whether the recipe was new or modified they could go to that item page and see whether the recipe was modified or was item new during the said patch.

Also, updated your table to take out the issues I already mentioned in my previous reply and you agreed in yours. Seems like we getting down to things, if we don't agree on anything, just defer to making a poll on it.

PS> making long posts isn't a problem for me, I can open things in 2-3 tabs if I need to compare, so don't cut things short on my account. Spelling things correctly on the other hand would help :P.
--AntiZig (talk, contribs) 21:36, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner, I was away camping from Friday afternoon until late Sunday night when i crashed dead tired. Tried to respond before I left but it got way to busy. Ii think we have worked out all the kinks and are ready to present this to the wiki, I have made a few more edits to the second table to make it easier to reference different points.

I added numbering to the sections. so that 2.4.2 is Component item added to recipe (secondary item change).

I added descriptions to each category as i thought they needed it.

I agree with all of the comments you made above and have have changed the table accordingly.

I think your reasoning for not making distinctions between 2.2.1 and 2.4.1 are sound and I used a similar argument decisions i made when setting up some of these formats. I have altered the text to make it the same in both cases. I did the same for 2.1 and 2.4.2.

Polls we should make

The big one. Do you like the new format? We should encourage comments here.

Number format for gold. I think we should ask about this, i know just saying 100 is fairly obvious but when you put currency you really do need have units. Plus, I think it looks better as 100g.

Do we add 2.4.3 to the patch notes? I'm really not sure about this one and would like other opinions. I keep flip flopping.

If we add 2.4.3 to patch notes what type of wording do we use. The wording in the table or do we mention the component that's cost has changed. I personally think we should mention the item. If the cost change of a Dagger made Zeal more expensive then the dagger should be mentioned. Otherwise it was a change to the Combine cost.

The wording used in 1.4.2. We both like the term combine so we could just make an executive decision. However, I personally believe we should use the same wording in the Patch note page and in the Item page patch history that means they should both be "recipe cost" or both "combine cost". That seems like the kind of change we should ask people about.

just to Reiterate. The reason I like Combine is that i see the recipe as being Gold + Items. So if the change was to the gold component we need to be specific about that.

Poll Prep

Alright then. Ask Sam, which format would he prefer the poll to be, in the mean while, I'll leave the code for polls here so you can copy them to appropriate place once Sam replies. (I'm having issues with accessing the wiki from work, so might see decreased activity on my part till the end of the month)

1. I feel like the general question doesn't need a poll on its own, just ask people for comments, if they don't like something they will let us know.
2.

Formatting for gold units:

combine cost increased to 100 gold from 50.

14

combine cost increased to 100 g from 50 g.

7

combine cost increase to 100 from 50.

2

other (please leave comment)

0

The poll was created at 12:28 on April 19, 2011, and so far 23 people voted.

Please wait, submitting your vote...

3.
This entry would be made on item pages in the change history section. This particular change only relates to complex items that have a recipe that consists of multiple components. The question is, when one of the component items experiences a cost change, the affected items that use the modified item as part of their recipe will have the total cost affected due to the change. Should this type of change be noted as part of the item changes history?

The votes are mine, I like those two polls. I like what you have done to improve the project, it looks quite well done. You can prepare a blog and add the "Community News" tag. I will later on link it from the Community Messages. One thing only: on the wiki we use "recipe cost" instead of "combine cost" in all areas. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 18:02, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well that second point is not entirely true. The item pages use gold cost, recipe cost is not used although they do list the recipe as Items + Gold. I saw combine cost being used in patch histories when i first started my project which is why it's the format i used. Many item history sections use that wording and no one has said a thing about it until now. If "recipe" is the official use right now there is no reason it can't be changed if people agree that the change is for the best. At most you will have to go through the patch notes and alter a word here or there, im sure Tech would have it done in a night. Here are my arguments for you to concider.

The recipe is Items + Gold, since we are talking about the change in the gold cost, using the term recipe is in my opinion not specific enough as it could be the cost of the items changing.

You are in essence paying gold to combine several items into a new items so "Combine cost" is a better description.

Combine cost is the current term used in the official Riot patch notes, see wiggles lantern in V1.0.0.115. This terminology is used in previous patches as well. I know Riot has used several terms in the past but we should stay modern.

It sounds better.

If you still think we should keep it as recipe i think we should ask the community. I am willing to accept the majority opinion. --Exiton =:> (talk, contribs) 21:58, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

I second everything Exiton listed, all valid points I agree with. I would also like to add that the purpose for the poll is precisely to have the community the decide on the format that we can follow from now on, instead of relying on Riot to come up with random wording (because basically that is where the difference stems from).

Exiton, I think you should make the blog post as you will have better opportunity to monitor it. (due to beforementioned problem I'm having so far :( ) --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 22:18, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Poll 2

Results

Decided in favor of option 4: total cost changed to x gold from y (component item increased/decreased in price).

Last few things

Exiton, I wanted to pick your brain on the change we had in v116. The patch notes formatting, the cloth armor was added to Randuins Omen recipe. Do you think the way it is listed currently is ok? Or should it be changed to full recipe format as we have above in 1.4.1? --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 13:12, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Good question. On the item page itself i used the above formatting as it stood before our poll, there should be a change to the cost point indicating it's more expensive due to the addition of the cloth armour. On the 116 patch page itself i'm trying to remember why i did it that way. At the time it seemed sensible and i know i was doing it differently. I can't remember why now, I will change it to follow what we agreed upon. Exiton =:> (talk, contribs) 17:57, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Separate question. We have decided upon using the to 100 gold from 50 format. However we still use the term "g" in our recipes. Should this be replaced such that it now says.

MoS updated

Alright, I updated the MoS with the changes to Patch Notes formatting that came from this discussion. The item history is ought to go on Item page of the MoS which hasn't been updated yet. --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 19:10, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

I would just drop this fully updated table into the MoS, it would be much easier. Put a little code section before it showing how to code the entries. I may do that tonight if you don't have a chance to do it. Exiton =:> (talk, contribs) 18:29, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with just dropping the table into MoS. We used the table to organize our information while we were discussing it, so it would be easier to compare how the entries would look in patch notes and on item pages histories. The MoS currently has only section pertaining to patch notes formatting, which I have already updated. The items history formatting should go on the MoS/Item since that's what the MoS lists as the format for all item pages, and I think patch history formatting for items should be included on that page. --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 19:23, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that you are right about putting the item patch history format under MoS/Item. I do however think the table is a better format. I find it far more useful as it nicely summarizes all of the formats we use. Having to read through paragraphs of text to find pertinent information is a little annoying. You can still have a discussion in there before the table and use the table to show examples. Exiton =:> (talk, contribs) 19:36, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Links in Patch Histories

Ok a nother issue has popped up that I don't think we discussed. The question of putting links in patch histories. I noticed that with the new tenacity items people put links in the histories which is something we do not usually do. I give you an example of how it's entered in the history now.

I think the second way is better, there will already be links to those stats earlier on the page where it's stats are listed. Exiton =:> (talk, contribs) 18:29, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, second way is better. Another thing to touch upon is capitalization, but that's for the whole wiki in general I think. In patch notes I mostly use lower case for all those parameters and such (attack speed, critical strike chance, etc). Only in this patch I put links on tenacity in all instances, since it's a new mechanic, so having extra links for it doesn't hurt. Besides that, there should be no need of linking such parameters more than 1st time they are mentioned on the page, if at all. --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 19:23, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Ok ill fix up the pages in question, i already went through and fixed a bunch of capitalization in of the the patch notes today. Literally every word in a sentence was capitalized. I agree with leaving the aforementioned parameters lower case. Exiton =:> (talk, contribs) 19:39, May 10, 2011 (UTC)